It may seem a little late, but this year, I made it my mission to really celebrate the festival of lights. So, my girlfriend and I got a Menorah, some candles, some dreidels, and some Latkahs and went for it!
Each night, the prayers were said, some psalms were read, and we covered our heads. We listened to some Hanukkah carols (which amounted to Matisyahu, Adam Sandler, and the Beastie Boys). There was something sweet about all of it, and Menorah got more beautiful with each night. We also exchanged gifts, and that was fun. They were smaller ones, but it was nice being able to share something every night with each other.
Getting into it this year, I had a nice thought: I'm probably the first Wolff to celebrate Hanukkah in who knows how many years. The last Wolff in our family to be Jewish, was my Great Grandfather Leslie Wolff. But, he married a catholic, and that was the end of it...
But This year, we got back to it. Not just me, but my sister did as well. This could be the start of a trend.
So what did I think of it? I like it. It's a refreshing ceremony to be a part of that celebrates a historic re-dedication. I felt like I rededicated myself to some things. Will I be celebrate it next year? Absolutely.
It's impressive, and even fascinating, that I have been doing this blog for only one year. It feels like a lot longer of an interval than that. You might not count it as a full year, what with the aparent lack of posts for much of that second half. But that is something I plan to change.
There will be some changes to the posts I do. I feel like I stressed way to much over the length of posts and getting this and that done for it. I think I'm going to take it in a fresh direction... which means I'm winging it.
There should be more posts to come, sooner rather than later, and I'll start now with... I don't know, I'll get back to you.
I'll end with a Ralph Macchio signed VHS copy of "Karate Kid."
Today, I've made a special piece in honor of Halloween. Here is a drawing honoring the classic Universal Monsters alongside their "recent" re-interpretations.
Rough grays
Just Lines.
Can you guess where they all come from?
I attended a Life Drawing session yesterday afternoon. It's the first time since college that I've gotten back into it. I must say, I enjoyed the challenge and I think its practice that my skills direly need. So here are the best of pics from my first day back (and before anyone thinks the wrong thing, it's a SCARF she's using to hold her hands up!)
Kumare, Kumare, Kumare! That is the chant in my head right now. I just saw this movie, and I have to say its really well made since it keeps me thinking about it. Kumare is a documentary about Vikram Ghandi, a New Jersey man who set out to discover what it took to be a guru. Vikram grew up in a Hindu household, but eventually grew away from it. He became fascinated by the fad of Guru worship that was (and to some extent is) sweeping the country. Since he doubted religion, and doubted thir credibility, he set out to prove that gurus, or really anyone appointing themselves as "holymen/women," are just regular people. What follows was a fascination examination into faith, fallacy, and human connection.
This movie is great, and on Netflix. When I saw it (with a group) there was much debate over the morality of his misrepresentation since he did develop a following with 14 students. I say that his performance was based off of stereotypes that many people buy into about "eastern wisdom," and that from the start, he preached that he was a fake and that a guru is not neccessary for self improvement. anyone who didn't accept that when he revealed his true identity clearly didn't get his message.
For those of you who are unaware, there is a film out currently that is the third installment of a cinematic trilogy. However, it does not have a roman numeral, or a 3, or even a designating subtitle in its name. It is called The World's End and it is the completion of the Cornetto Trilogy.
The creative team of Edgar Wright (Director), Simon Pegg (writer/actor), and Nick Frost (writer/actor) have known each other for a long time and have collaborated on some of the funniest films of the last decade. The films in question are of course Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and the aforementioned The World's End. They do not tell a continuous story, or relate in any wayto each other besides returning actors, a kinetic style of film-making and a love of the European ice cream brand Cornetto.
Ricky Gervais is a funny guy. He created The Office and has written for dozens of shows and movies. He's a talented stand up comedian as well, with his quirky mannerisms and delivery. He's a thoughtful guy too, often weighing in on world events and commenting on society, which is a comedian's job after all. He's also an Atheist.
I decided on Ricky Gervais as the focus for this Friday's post because I needed a laugh and he's a great person to get one from. Often times religious comedy is either harmless or harmful. With Gervais, he is usually goofy as hell. Take for instance his reading of the Noah story (Language advisory).
That was great! "Why did the dove get a second go and not the raven? Racist!" He doesn't think the Bible has much credence to it, FYI. You may have guessed that from a little movie called The Invention of Lying. In it, his character lives in a world without lies, and he, the first person to lie, also is the founder of religion.
That's some pretty funny stuff. I recommend seeing the rest of the movie too. I want to share a few more of my favorite bits of his. Come on it's Friday, have a laugh!
And This...
And this...
And Finally, this talk he had with Richard Dawkins...
Not just funny, but thoughtful. A good human being.
Have a splendid weekend!
A growing list of influential artists, writers, poets, filmmakers, and creatives.
Cliff Chiang
Today I wanted to spotlight one of my favorite artists that's currently hard at work making amazing art. And who should be up today but Cliff Chiang, the fabulous artists behind DC's current run on Wonder Woman (which is awesome by the way!). Cliff's work is a beautiful balance of classic line-work with a contemporary dynamism that makes his style right for almost anything.
A new installment of the "Superhero-for-every-state" project.
NEBRASKA: One of the nation's most popular corn-themed heroes, Kernel
Corn fires his cob-klobbs at all opponents of freedom. By merely
shucking an ear and tossing it, he creates an explosion of popcorn that
traps wrongdoers. Beware his hot-buttered Justice!
Now that we've been introduced to Alan Moore, I'd like to share his rather refreshing view of religious belief and practice. He believes that spiritual pursuit should be decided by the individual, or that one religion for everybody doesn't make sense. Everyone is different, and since everyone id different, we each have our own spiritual needs that we should seek to satisfy on our own. If you don't have much of a spiritual hunger, then just get a salad and a diet coke. But if you crave exotic tastes, then look into the ancient deities of the Mayans, Inuit, or Roman snake deities.
Moore, as I've said before, is a bit of a weirdo. As a comic writer he has been incredibly influential on the medium, and has even been called one of the most in important contemporary writers in Britain. Many of his comics have been turned into films, though you'll notice his name isn't on it. Why? Because for him, the movie is something completely different than the comic, and he wants no part of it and thus, he gives his portion of the royalties to the other contributors. At least he practices what he preaches.
He supports an open view of reality, religion, and personal values. He also has some interesting views on the idea of magic and mysticism. Simply put, magic is Art. Magic is manipulation of symbols, words, and ideas in order to change the consciousness of yourself and others. This is so cool to me. To think that being a magician is to someone who creates with words, with colors, and with objects what was not before is empowering to me. I think I will be a magician.
Moore is a fascinating personality because he is at the same time mystical and rational. He has poetic air bout him that is almost intimidating, yet he has a gentle sense of humor and an open mind that would invite you to join him for tea. There are many great interviews with him on Youtube and other places, including an 80 minute documentary about him. Here is a few (10 minutes worth) words from Kevin Smith and friends on the amazing run on Swamp Thing that Moore worked on in the 80s.
I'll leave you with a quote from the video I linked to in the last article. As Alan stands on stage a callous version of himself accuses him of having a messiah complex. He responds:
A growing list of influential Artists, Writers, Poets, Filmmakers, and Creatives.
Alan Moore
I like this guy, he's weird. He's the oddball who cut his name out of the movie adaptations of his works and refused to accept the money for it. He has weird religious beliefs (more on that Friday), a bizarre dress code, and he thinks comics are the best kind of art (can you guess what I think of him?). Alan Moore is one of my favorite comic writers because he consistantly challenges himself and the medium with complex characters, morally ambiguous stories, and vivid visual storytelling. To keep things brief, I will list off a few of my favorite works by him.
This project started from an idea I came up with while talking to a
friend about superheroes. The specific comment made was, "What would a
superhero inspired by Ohio be like?" I took that comment and set out to
create a superhero for every state, representing their state as
critically and humorously as possible.
Florida
In a state of spring break, gators, and oranges comes the
hottest superhero of 1968! Retired Man may find it hard to get to the
bathroom on time, but he's never late taking evil down a peg through his
incredible storytelling skills.
For More, Go Here!
I was asked for my thoughts on the new Superman movie Man of Steel.
I could have just done that, but after watching the first three
Christopher Reeve movies with a few friends recently, I feel the need
to talk about the new movie in reference to the old. The reason for
that: I feel much of the criticism of the new film is due to referring
to what has gone before.
Man of Steel (2013)
Finally
to the point of all of this. If you couldn't tell already, I think that
Superman could due with a cinematic course correction. When Looking back at the other films, aside from a nostalgic desire to say they're great, they aren't so much: plots are dicey, character development is weak, and, aside from Reeve, the other characters just aren't particularly interesting. So I felt, going into Man of Steel that the filmmakers needed to completely forget what had been done on film before.
And they pretty much did.
Today I get to combine Superheroes and religion into one post! I heard a story about this on NPR and I just had to tell everyone about it. There's a new hero in Pakistan and she is called " The Burqa Avenger" or "The Lady in Black." By day, she is kind, educated, and strong school teacher Jiya by day, and a costumed fighter for social justice by night. The Avenger uses karate that employs books and pencils as weapons and can glide with her Burqa. This animated series tackles social issues that are relevant to its audience, and wrap it up in the colorful and dramatic dressings of a superhero story. In other words, this is really neat.
Her creator, Haroon Rashid, had some pretty awesome things to say about this project. One of the things he addressed was the use of the Burqa itself. To many it is a symbol of oppression and not of a liberated woman. Here is what he had to say:
"We chose the burqa because of course we wanted to hide her identity the
way superheroes do. She doesn't wear the burqa during the day — she
doesn't even wear a headscarf, or a hijab or anything like that; she
goes about her business as a normal teacher would. And so she chooses to
wear the burqa, she's not oppressed ... and on the other end of the
spectrum, a lot of female superheroes in the West are objectified, and
sort of sexualized in their costumes, like Catwoman and Wonder Woman,
and that certainly would not work here."
He does have a point.
He goes on to explain that The Burqa in this case functions like Batman's costume, a disguise to protect her identity, which is actually functional in doing so. It's like the opposite of a Domino Mask.
So wait, you're not Ryan reynolds?
The animated series has gained praise from children and parents alike, much of which for what its creator talks about here:
"There's a huge space for children's entertainment in Pakistan. There's
practically no local entertainment; ... a lot of the entertainment is
imported from the West; it's not relevant, socially relevant or
culturally relevant, and most of it's just entertaining junk, like,
let's say, Ben 10. ... They don't have any social messages, and
I think it's important to have positive social messages and themes and
morals. And a lot of young children who don't get the opportunity to get
a great education need programming which is entertaining and yet also
educational."
I hope this show does really well. I think educational entertainment is a great medium to support. And I think the world needs more superheroes that everyone can look up to; girls and boys, young and old.
The animation is alright, but the concept is awesome.
For more info, check out the interview with the creator on NPR,
Today, it's time for something different. I figured that since I'm a fan of comic books, I might as well say something about them here! And to start off, I want to support a new series published by the revitalized company Valiant!
Quantum and Woody was apparently published back in the 90s by Valiant before the comic, and the company, failed. I never read it and so I am unfamiliar and unaware of any previous character iterations. What drew me to this book was the subtitle: The world's worst Super-hero team!
That premise was enough to earn my interest and, evidently, my money.
I've only read one issue (Issue 1) and it starts out with some great characterization and establishes a rich dynamic between the two titular characters. The two, being brothers, both have their own problems, and seeing them play out in a superhero book sounds appealing to me. There's a nice balance of heart and humor that I hope is a standard that the series continues.
Character design for this comic is pretty solid. I like the contrast between the two get-ups relating to the personality differences. They apparently did this in the original run, but from what I've seen of the old series' look...
I think it was smart to ditch the leather jacket over a bodysuit look, but I definitely dig the white cape. What is with the blandifying homogenization of Super-suit design these days? Though The Incredibles was a great movie, I like capes. And furthermore I like high collars, I like Jack Kirby-esqueflamboyantdo-dads, and, by all that is considered sacred, I like victorian-era strongman underpants!
So in case you haven't got the gist, I think this is shaping up to be a fun book that you should pick up. Try it, you might like it.
If you need more convincing, there's a preview right here.
A Special Edition of my Monday posts. Here is a taste of a upcoming project I am taking on with one of my fellow Austin area animators. Coming Soon to a Youtube near you!
I was asked for my thoughts on the new Superman movie Man of Steel.
I could have just done that, but after watching the first three
Christopher Reeve movies with a few friends recently, I feel the need
to talk about the new movie in reference to the old. The reason for
that: I feel much of the criticism of the new film is due to referring
to what has gone before.
Superman Returns (2006)
The 90's were, for Superman film fans, the lost years of the man of steel (Though we did have a few great TV shows during that time). There were scripts upon scripts proposed during that period: A fifth Christopher Reeve entry featuring the death and return of the character, Several attempts to reboot the franchise including a whacked out of its gourd treatment by Tim Burton and producer Jon Peters that involved the death of a flightless, capeless, Superman and a Giant spider (which I happen to be making an animated rendition of currently).
In the 21st century, there were talks by JJ Abrams of a Superman movie where he goes to the afterlife to learn a few lessons from his pop, and even a Superman/Batman crossover film that only really happened in the I am Legend universe.
With Superman Returns, they decided to take things back to what made the first two movies great, and make a sequel... to a 24 year old movie.
Well that could've gone better.
There were a lot of things I sort of liked about this movie when it came out. I liked Brandon Routh as Clark Kent (not so much as cold and creepy supreman) and I liked Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor, mostly because even though he's still inexplicably land obsessed, is much more insane and threatening in this movie. Supporting cast is pretty strong, but, yet again, we have kind of a lame Lois Lane. We also have Super-kid (who kills a guy by smashing him with a piano) and, once again, a plot that keeps the hero and villain apart for far to long in the movie.
I'm also pretty sure that this costume killed Superman's underpants in movies for years to come.
The effects in this movie are Superb and the Super feats are pretty cool too, but then again, superman lifting things is just kind of OK. There's also a few bizarre things that I don't quite get, like why lex Luthor would want land to be transformed into that ugly infertile black stone. I mean, sure, everybody needs land, but I think that everyone would crowd all the pretty parts of the world to avoid staying in that hell.
In general, I think the movie was held back by its need/desire to replicate what had come before it. Director Bryan Singer never got the chance to create a new cinematic vision of Superman and instead just tied himself to his affection for the original two movies, which, as I have said, twice, had plenty of problems and weren't that great.
I think if they tried to break with tradition, it would have provided a more interesting, and ultimately more successful film. I guess not even John William's Score and a Christopher Reeve look-alike could make it work. At least he didn't kill anyone in this one!
I was asked for my thoughts on the new Superman movie Man of Steel.
I could have just done that, but after watching the first three
Christopher Reeve movies with a few friends recently, I feel the need
to talk about the new movie in reference to the old. The reason for
that: I feel much of the criticism of the new film is due to referring
to what has gone before.
Superman III (1983)
and
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)
Suck.
Let me elaborate on this. Superman movies had been alright up to this point. That was the case, I'm certain, because of the involvement of Richard Donner, the director of the first movie and half of the second. Superman II director Richard Lester was on his own for the third movie. An early draft of III contained Mr Mxyzptlk, Brainiac, and Supergirl that was actually pretty interesting, but Warner Brothers thought that it wasn't that great. So instead we got this...
Superman III doesn't feel quite like a Superman movie it all. It feels like too completely separate films (a story about superman visiting smallville and a wacky 80s comedy involving greedy people and computers) intercut with each other. In short, this movie is almost not worth talking about. There are only five good things about this movie:
1. Christopher Reeve once again does an admirable job as Supes.
2. Almost no Margot Kidder.
3. Annette O'Toole's Lana Lang
4. "Sling! Sing-a-pore Sling!"
5. Evil Superman.
When Superman begins to be effected by the gunky Kryptonite and becomes a Jerk, I think the movie is at it's most interesting. I mean, he rams an oil tanker, messes up the leaning tower of Pisa, and blows out the olympic torch just because. I also really like the sequence where he has a battle with himself, especially since the good part of him is represented by Clark Kent.
This movie is pretty bad, much worse than the first two, but it is nothing compared to the shitstorm that is Superman IV.
The fourth installment in the series brings back Margot Kidder's Lois Lane and Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor in the series "Final" installment. Some of the ideas at its heart aren't too bad. Superman decides, at the behest of a little kid, to disarm all nuclear warheads on the planet to try and force world peace, something he later learns that he can't do. There is also the Daily Planet getting taken over by an entertainment mogul out to turn the respected paper into a tabloid. Not bad things, inherently. But then there's this.
That's "Nuclear Man," created from a strand of Superman's hair, some of lex luthor's dna, and the sun... or something. Instead of having a real supervillain from the source material, they get an 80's rocker looking dude with long nails.
The effects are cheap, the plot cuts corners and makes no sense and Superman is given new powers again. In the end, he totally kills Nuclear man by dropping him into a reactor. And come to think of it, He sort of just abandons the villains in the third movir in that cave in... is killing the same as let-die?
I was asked for my thoughts on the new Superman movie Man of Steel.
I could have just done that, but after watching the first three
Christopher Reeve movies with a few friends recently, I feel the need
to talk about the new movie in reference to the old. The reason for
that: I feel much of the criticism of the new film is due to referring
to what has gone before.
Superman II (1980)
A
comment was made in watching the first two films stating that they feel like one
big movie. This is absolutely true. If there were no Superman II simultaneously being planned and filmed the first five minutes of the first movie would make absolutely no sense. Why would we begin with the condemnation of criminals if it didn't come back to them later. So I would refer to it as Superman: The Movie Part II.
Again we have Christopher Reeve doing a great Job as Supes and Clark Kent, and again we have a great film score, but we also have a host of issues. This movie has many great sequences that make it interesting, such as Superman giving up his powers to be with Lois, as well as a fairly well executed bout between Superman and his three Kryptonian foes. I'd say besides Reeves and the score, the villains make for a good addition.
And then there is this...
What?
This movie gives Superman and the other aliens powers that he doesn't have or need. He can apparently teleport, use telekinesis, multiply himself, and... throw his S at someone. He also can remove someone's short-term memory by kissing them, a power that I have dubbed "The Roofie Kiss." As there is good in this movie, so is there bad. Supes, as in the first one, spends 2/3s to 3/4s of the movie apart from, and unaware of, his antagonists. Also there's the crazy scene where he almost lets Lois die to protect his secret. Which leads me to "The Richard Donner Cut."
The first Superman movie was directed by Richard Donner, and half of Superman II was directed by him as well. But due to a tonal disagreement with the producers, he was let go, and Richard Lester took over. The Producers wanted it to be sillier, and in essence, dumber. The "Richard Donner Cut" is an assembly of all the extra scenes Donner shut cut into the movie along with some test footage to fill the gaps. It makes the movie more serious and in general much better. That still doesn't mean its great. Superman still spends too much time separate from Zod and the others as well as using the same time travel trick from the first movie to render all the events of this film pointless. Yikes.
A lot of people overlook the weird and silly things in this movie and just say its great and walk away. Most people even overlook the fact that Superman totally kills his enemies in this movie, With Lois even punching the girl to her icy Death. They all die, and its' not considered terrible or even morally ambiguous, but triumphant. I mention this because it death like this will come into play later.
I don't want to come off as a hater, but I have to be honest. I can still enjoy the movie, but it's by no means a perfect, or unimpeachable film representation of the adventures of Superman.
If you're going to watch Superman II, go for the Richard Donner Cut. But either way, you get this immensely gratifying, if morbid, scene at the end.
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
.JPG){kind=link}